Oops. 97% of papers that support the AGW ‘consensus’ includes one on cooking stove use in Bangladesh

This paper is vacated, as a scientific product, given that it included psychology papers, and also given that it twice lied about its method (claiming not to count social science papers, and claiming to use independent raters), and the professed cheating by the raters. It was essentially voided by its invalid method of using partisan and unqualified political activists to subjectively rate climate science abstracts on the issue on which their activism centers -- a stunning and unprecedented method. I'm awaiting word on retraction from the journal, but I think we already know that this paper is vacated. It doesn't represent knowledge of the consensus.

The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

Let’s go ahead and walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

…

I discovered that the following papers were included as endorsement, as “climate papers”, again in just ten minutes of looking. They are classified as either implicit or explicit endorsement, and were evidently included in the 97% figure:

In Table 1, page 2, the authors claimed that social science papers were classified as “Not climate related” and not included as endorsement cases. This is a false claim, and the authors should be investigated for fraud. (There were some papers that were classified as “Not climate related” in my quick search, but the above papers were not — they were classified is implicit or explicit endorsement.)